As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned

In 1960 Barry Goldwater began the revolt of the Republican Party’s constituent “outsider” or “country class,” by calling for a grass-roots takeover of the Party. This led to Goldwater’s nomination for President in 1964. The Republican Establishment maligned him more vigorously than did the Democrats. But the Goldwater movement switched to Ronald Reagan, who overcame the Republican Establishment and the ruling class to win the Presidency by two landslide elections. Yet the question: “who or what does the Republican Party represent” continued to sharpen because the Reagan interlude was brief, because it never transformed the Party, and hence because the Bush (pere et fils) dynasty plus Congressional leadership (Newt Gingrich was a rebel against it and treated a such) behaved increasingly indistinguishably from Democrats. Government grew more rapidly under these Republican Administrations than under Democratic ones.

In sum, the closer one gets to the Republican Party’s voters, the more the Party looks like Goldwater and Reagan. The closer one gets to its top, the more it looks like the ghost of Rockefeller. Consider 2012: the party chose for President someone preferred by only one fourth of its voters – Mitt Romney, whose first youthful venture in politics had been to take part in the political blackballing of Barry Goldwater.

One reason for the Republican Party’s bipolarity is the centripetal attraction of the ruling class: In the absence of forces to the contrary, smaller bodies tend to become satellites of larger ones. Modern America’s homogenizing educational Establishment and the ruling class’ near monopoly on credentials, advancement, publicity, and money draws ambitious Republicans into the Democrats’ orbit. That is why for example a majority of the Republican Establishment, including The Wall Street Journal and the post-W.F. Buckley National Review supported the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and its premise that big, well-connected enterprises are “too big to fail” - which three fourths of the American people opposed vociferously. For these Republican cognoscenti vox populi is not vox dei, but the voice of idiots. Accordingly, after the 2010 elections produced a large contingent of Senators and Congressmen pledged to oppose measures such as the TARP, former Senate Republican majority leader Trent Lott expressed confidence that Washington would soon break the new members to its ways, that pledges to voters would count for little against the approval or disapproval of prestigious personages, against the profit to be made by going along with the ruling class and the trouble that comes from opposing it.

That trouble is daunting. Whoever chooses to represent the country class might have right and reason on their side. Nevertheless they can be certain that the ruling class media will not engage those reasons but vilify the persons who voice them as ignorant, irresponsible, etc. Asserting moral-intellectual superiority, chastising and intimidating rather than persuading opponents is by no means the least of the ruling class’ powers. “It’s the contempt, stupid!” But the Republican leadership has proved stupid enough to deal with the contempt as the Pharisee in the Temple dealt with sin: “I thank thee Lord that I am not like other Republicans…”

Some Democrats seem to believe that taking these Republicans unto themselves while deeming the remainder “unworthy,” withdrawing “tolerance toward [their] regressive opinions,” will crush serious opposition. Maybe. Surely however, incorporating the Republican Establishment into the ruling class leaves the dissidents free coherently to pursue their own vision, and with a monopoly of opposition. In two-party systems, the opposition eventually wins. Considering that, according to a 2013 Pew poll, 53% of Americans view the government as a threat to their welfare and liberties (up from 36% in 1995 and that a third of those who feel that way are Democrats); considering that government’s very legitimacy decreases as government grows in size, that victory may come sooner rather than later.

To Represent

Because of the aforementioned, the political representation of America’s country class is fragmentary. But the uniformity of the ruling class’ pressure on the fragments is pressing them toward similar responses and perhaps unity.

It matters less whether two thirds of Republican congressmen vote against their leaders as they did on January 1, 2013 out of conviction or because their constituents demand it. Fact is, Republican leaders become less significant with every passing year because they have no way of reversing the intellectual trends from above or the popular pressure from below. Recent Presidential elections have shown that contemporary Establishment Republicans elicit scarce, unenthusiastic support even from longtime Republican voters because they are out of synch with their flock. In short, the Republican leadership finds itself in a position analogous to that of Episcopal bishops: They own an august label and increasingly empty churches because they have been chasing off the faithful priests and congregations.

This of course is what happened to the Whig party after 1850. After it became undeniable that party leader Henry Clay’s latest great compromise had sold the party’s principles cheap, the most vigorous Whigs, e.g. New York governor William Seward and national hero John C. Fremont – joined by an obscure Illinois ex-congressman named Abraham Lincoln whose only asset was that he reasoned well – looked for another vehicle for their cause. In 1854, together with representatives of other groups, they founded the Republican Party. Today the majority of Republican congressmen plus a minority of senators – dissidents from the Party but solid with their voters – are the natural core of a new party. The name it might bear is irrelevant. Very relevant are sectors of America’s population increasingly represented by groups that sprang up to represent them when the Republican leadership did not.

This representation is happening by default. It is aided by the internet, which makes it possible to spread ideas to which the educational Establishment gives short shrift and which the ruling class media shun. In short, the internet helps undermine the ruling class’ near-homogenization of American intellectual life, its closing of the American mind. Not by reason but by bureaucratic force majeure had America’s educational Establishment isolated persons who deviate from it, cutting access to a sustaining flow of ideas that legitimize their way of life. But the internet allows marginalized dissenters to reason with audiences of millions. Ideas have consequences. No surprise then that more and more of Republican elected officials seem to think less like their leaders and more like their voters.

The internet also spread the power to organize. Already in the 1970s Richard Viguerie had begun to upset the political parties’ monopoly on organization by soliciting money from the general public for causes and candidates through direct mail. The internet amplified this technique’s effectiveness by orders of magnitude, making it possible to transmit ideas and political signals while drawing financial support from millions of likeminded people throughout the country. Thus informed with facts and opinion, sectors of the country class have felt represented and empowered vis a vis the ruling class. Those on the electronic distribution list of the “Club for Growth,” for example, are at least as well informed on economic matters as any credentialed policy maker. The several pro-life organizations have spread enough knowledge of embryology and moral logic to make Roe v. Wade, which the ruling class regards as its greatest victory, a shrinking island in American jurisprudence and society. The countless Tea Parties that have sprung up all over have added their countless attendees to networks of information and organization despite the ruling class’ effort to demonize them. The same goes for evangelicals, gun owners, etc. Though such groups represent the country class fragmentarily, country class people identify with them rather than with the Republican Party because the groups actually stand for something, and represent their adherents against the ruling class’ charges, insults, etc.

Since America’s first-past-the-post electoral system produces elections between two parties, it was natural for any and all groups who oppose the ruling class to gravitate to the Republican Party. But the Party’s leaders, reasoning that “they have nowhere else to go,” refused to notice that voters were lending their votes out of allegiance to causes rather than to the Party, and that Republican candidates increasingly sought votes through the medium of groups that advocate these causes rather than through the Party Establishment. It was shocked when candidates won Republican primaries by aligning themselves with such groups, against the Party itself. The flood of votes that such groups energized in 2010 signified that the groups, not the Party, had come to represent opposition to the ruling class. But post 2010, the Republican leadership continued to pretend to be the county class’ representative while not actually representing it. Its donors buried opposition to Mitt Romney in attack ads and picked its own kind of candidates wherever it could.

After the leadership’s electoral disaster of 2012 and its subsequent pathetic fecklessness the only vision of a possible future in Republican ranks – the only programmatic and organizational coherence –was among the Party’s dissident majority in the House and dissident minority in the Senate. By 2013 it was less meaningful to ask what the leadership would do with the dissidents than what the dissidents would do with the leadership. The answer seemed to be: increasingly to ignore it, to go one’s own way; more and more, to go along with conscience and with voters. By 2013 as their numbers continued to grow without counter trend, it was difficult to imagine how the leadership might reduce their numbers.

At the same time, the groups that represent the country class’ pieces were mounting and winning more primary challenges to Establishment Republicans. The establishment responded with its main asset: money. The New York Times reported a concerted effort by the Party’s biggest donors led by longtime Bush staffer Karl Rove (yes, the Rockefeller wing) to support Establishment candidates in the primary process. But establishment candidates are already better funded than dissidents, usually massively so. The establishment candidates who have survived dissident challenges have seldom done it through sheer cash, but rather by fuzzing the differences between themselves and the dissidents. Designating themselves formally as “establishment,” was almost sure to hurt them. Moreover to set up the Republican establishment as a separate caucus invites the dissidents to unite and present themselves united as an alternative. That is the natural path to the dissidents forming a new party while Republican leadership dissolves into the Democratic party. In sum, the value of the label “Republican” is problematic.

The instrument and its use

A new party is likely to arise because the public holds both Republicans and Democrats responsible for the nation’s unsustainable course. Indebtedness cannot increase endlessly. Nor can regulations pile on top of regulations while the officials who promulgate them – and their pensions – continue to grow, without crushing those beneath. Nor can the population’s rush to disability status and other forms of public assistance, or the no-win wars that have resulted in “open season” on Americans around the world, continue without catharsis. One half of the population cannot continue passively to absorb insults without pushing back. When – sooner rather than later – events collapse this house of cards, it will be hard to credibly advocate a better future while bearing a label that advertises responsibility for the present. Why trust any Republican qua Republican?

To represent the country class, to set about reversing the ills the ruling class imposed on America, a party would have to confront the ruling class’ pretenses, with unity and force comparable to that by which these were imposed. There will be no alternative to all the country class’ various components acting jointly on measures dear to each. For example: since the connection between government and finance, the principle that large institutions are “too big to fail,” are dear to America’s best-connected people who can be counted on to threaten “systemic collapse,” breaking it will require the support of sectors of the country class for which “corporate welfare” is less of a concern than the welfare effects of the Social Security system’s component that funds fake disability and drug addiction – something about which macroeconomists mostly care little – and vice versa. Similarly the entire country class has as much interest in asserting the right of armed self-defense as does any gun owner, because the principle of constitutional right is indivisible. Nothing will require greater unity against greater resistance than ending government promotion of abortion and homosexuality. Yet those whose main concerns are with financial probity cannot afford continuing to neglect that capitalist economics presupposes a morally upright people. All this illustrates the need for, and the meaning of, a political party: disparate elements acting all of one and one for all.

Diversity is not a natural barrier to pursuing common interests. Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic party included every unreconstructed segregationist in the South, as well as nearly all Progressives in university towns like Hyde Park, Illinois and Madison, Wisconsin – people who despised not only the segregationists but also the Catholic Poles, Italians, and Irish from Milwaukee to Boston whose faith and habits were as foreign to them as they were to Southerners. Yet all understood that being mutually supportive of Democrats was the key to getting what they wanted.

The common, unifying element of the several country class’ sectors is the ruling class’ insistence, founded on force rather than reason, that their concerns are illegitimate, that they are illegitimate. The ruling class demonizes the country class piece by piece. Piece by piece it cannot defend itself, much less can it set the country on a course of domestic and international peace, freedom and solvency. None of the country class’ politically active elements can, by themselves, hope to achieve any of their goals because they can be sure that the entire ruling class’ resources will be focused on them whenever circumstances seem propitious. In 2012 for example, the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms seemed politically safe. Then, one disaster brought seemingly endless resources from every corner of the ruling class to bear on its defenders. The rest of the country class’ politically active elements stood by, sympathetically, but without a vehicle for helping. Each of these elements should have learned that none can hope for indulgence from any part of the ruling class. They can look only to others who are under attack as they themselves are.

Far be it from a party that represents the country class to ape what it abhors by imposing punitive measures through party line votes covered by barrages of insults: few in the country class’ parts want to become a ruling class. Yet the country class, to defend itself, to cut down the forest of subsidies and privileges that choke America, to curb the arrogance of modern government, cannot shy away from offending the ruling class’ intellectual and moral pretenses. Events themselves show how dysfunctional the ruling class is. But only a political party worthy of the name can marshal the combination of reason, brutal images, and consistency adequately to represent America’s country class.

Angelo M. Codevilla is Professor Emeritus of international relations at Boston University and a fellow of the Claremont Institute.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

I agree. Codevilla accurately describes the split in the Republican party, unlike many establishment pundits who keep saying the Republicans are bad communicators. The reality is most our of R representatives are Democrat lite at best, and certainly not fiscally conservative or limited government proponents, in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary. One only needs to look at how they vote to see the truth of what they are, and their rhetoric shows them to be liars pretending to represent the “country class” as Codevilla calls what many others would call the Tea Party.

I do have minor quibbles with the article. Codevilla believes that most Republicans do represent the country class – he should review their votes and he’ll see it’s maybe 25% at best. The author also ignores Ron Paul and how the RNC treated him (though he does admit the ruling class will attack such country class representatives).

Codevilla also might be a social conservative who wants to use government to force his idea of virtue on us when he writes “ending government promotion of abortion and homosexuality” though perhaps he’s only against government promotion of such, instead of government prohibition of it. I see social conservatives to be the equivalent of liberals who want to force their ideas of virtue on us. I prefer virtue be left out of government (letting individuals behave as they wish provided they harm no one else or their property) rather than allowing social conservatives or liberals to step on others.

George Will said we need to nominate a libertarian for the R ticket next election. That would be a slap to the ruling class, one they deserve.

being against government promotion of homosexuality and abortion is not social conservatism. these are two very different issues. i dont think any but the most fundamentalist would want to criminalize homosexuality however i dont think a majority of people believe that the government should promote this behavior or even declare that it is the equivilent of heterosexual marriage. abortion on the other hand involves the taking of a human life the government can and should in some cases criminalize this. my personal opinion is that it should be left to the individual states. the supreme court should not be able to impose its view on the country via judicial fiat (emanations and penumbras and the like) but even if abortion is legal it is certainly not something the government should ever promote taking an infants life

You can’t be serious. This essay is egregious hogwash written by someone so deeply embedded in the right-wing echo bubble that he inhabits a reality quite apart from what normal people experience. As, apparently, do you.

because your feigned incredulity together with your lack of any specific facts can only lead me to the conclusion that you are a mindless drone capable only of regurgitating the most basic socialist talking points

ANGELO CODEVILLA IS A FIFTH COLUMNIST. HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. HE IS AN UP-TO-HIS NECK STRAUSSIAN/NEOCON. DESPITE HIS APPARENT POPULISM HERE, HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED. HE IS AFFILIATED WITH THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE, A NEOCON/STRAUSSIAN ORGANIZATION THAT IS MOSTLY NOTABLE FOR TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE TEA PARTY’S FRESHMAN ORIENTATION EFFORTS IN 2010 BY PUTTING ON A COMPETING EVENT AND TRYING TO CHANNEL THE FRESHMEN INTO IT. NEOCONS PRETEND TO BE PATRIOTS, BUT THEY ARE NOT. THEY WANT US GONE. THEY WANT THE TEA PARTY GONE. DO NOT TRUST THIS INDIVIDUAL. NEOCONS MAKE EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO INGRATIATE THEMSELVES TO PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT. THEY DON’T MEAN ANY OF IT. THEY WANT US GONE. LET CODEVILLA PUBLICLY DENOUNCE STRAUSSIAN THOUGHT/NEOCONSERVATISM IF HE IS INNOCENT. ASK HIM TO HIS FACE. I AM NOT WRONG ABOUT THIS. DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN.

IF YOU DEFEND HIM, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. COLLABORATORS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Wendy, I know Angelo well, and he is anything but what you are saying he is. In fact, he has been rather critical of what he calls the ‘no win’ wars which have come from from both liberal internationalists and neo-conservatives. One must only listen to the interview I did with him a few weeks ago here for Forbes to hear his views.

Also, the caps lock key is probably slightly to the left of your left pinkie finger. Give it a try.

I respect Rand Paul and believe he is a viable candidate. However, I’m waiting to see whether he becomes infected with the virus of Washington, D.C. that causes the vast majority of elected representatives to lose whatever principles they have.

Of course, none of this addresses the machine of the State; the federal agencies staffed by unelected bureaucrats with pensions that go on longer than their “service”. The only way I see to stop this is a nuclear warhead and thanks to Obama and the Repukes, we’ll be on the receiving end shortly. There is a God, and his name is Justice.

A great essay, but how can you speak of the modern-day “country” voters and not mention Dr. Ron Paul and/or the Tea Party to whom the country voters flocked, the co-option of the Tea Party by the elites, and the role the vast military-industrial corporate wealthfare complex plays in today’s politics?

This is a basic mistake that we keep making. The voters supported the TEA Party, but _not_ Ron Paul. Ron Paul was never very popular, he had a small group of passionately enthusiastic and very well-organized supporters who created an illusion of popularity. He did not represent more than a tiny faction of the views of the ‘country class’, who include a huge range of positions totally at odds with Ron Paul’s libertarianism.

The TEA Party themselves are not particularly libertarian at the rank and file level, not nearly so much as their spokesmen are or tend to be. That’s why Romney’s picking Paul Ryan only made things worse politically, he was supposed to bring in the TEA partiers, but the TEA Party aren’t much friendlier to changes in SocSec of Medicare than the rest of the general public.

I found that it was better to listen to Ron Paul than to his supporters (or attackers). I was surprised and pleased at what I found, and since last spring have made it a practice to always check out what he actually says rather than rely on what others say about what he says. I’m no libertarian (for the same reasons what Whittaker Chambers was not a libertarian), but Ron Paul is always worth listening to.

Jerry: Since it says that you are a Contributor, and since you write in a polite and non-confrontational style, perhaps you would be so kind as to inform Forbes or Prof. Angelo Codevilla that the first page of the article has two URLs that need to be replaced or removed entirely, ASAP. Both erroneously go to an SSL connection to ApptixEmail. The first is as follows: https://owa.apptixemail.net/owa/Macintosh%20HD:/%22Coming%20Apart/%20The%20State%20of%20White%20America,%201960%20to%202010%20…

Regarding the article, I think it was wise NOT to mention Ron Paul explicitly, because it would entirely distract from the rest of the content.

I was pleased to see a rare mention of “Bush pere et fils” as I have found the resemblance to dynasty quite uncomfortable. This is heightened when I hear of a third Bush considered for the same path. Likewise, I am uncomfortable by the family Clinton, husband and wife. But that is only one of many concerns.

How is it that you think that Tea Party was co-opted by the elites? The groups I am familiar with have little respect for those guys and the leadership is no different from what it was in the beginning. Perhaps you have been watching too much TV and not enough reality.

Angelo M. Codevilla first off in 1776 America’s country class did respond to lack of representation by uniting under the concept: “all men are created equal.” Far be it from the truth.

Truth is in 1776 America’s “country class” were mostly slave owners, men who engaged in kidnapping, enslaving, branding, raping, torturing, maiming, murdering men women and children. It is a contradiction of reality to say a slaveowner uniting under the concept “all men are created equal.”

In 1776 the United States of America was constituted under the Articles of Confederation in which freepersons; “paupers and vagabonds,” were denied the privileges and immunities afforded the privileged Prominent class of freepersons.

America’s “country class” forefathers for the most part were banished to America for indiscrections, they and their prosterity considered corrupt of blood and their plight originally was to restore their heritages to their lineabes and inheirences

America’s “country class” forefathers for the most part were banished to America for whatever their indiscrections, indentured by circumstance. They and their prosterity where deemed corrupt of blood and their plight originally was to restore their heritages to their lineage of pominent English and European families and fortunes.

Slavery was present worldwide at the time of the American Revolution, and it is still present in parts of the world today. The British, French and Spaniards brought it to the Americas. If you bother to read the writings of the Founders, you will find there was much angst and debate about slavery because the contradiction between principle and practice was evident, even to the slave owners. Not all the Founders owned slaves, but most of the Founders recognized the moral wrong of slavery. It was their belief that slavery would be extinguished and that is why the trade was banned by time certain. While slavery was legal in all of the colonies, it had been banned in more than half the states by 1800. I don’t think the blot of slavery renders the beauty and timelessness of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution any less so. Those principles, whether bolstered by practice or no, deserve revival. My thought is that you focus on one negative to exclusion of the many positives.

Yeah, but like the article said, Republicans just keep expanding the government like mad themselves. Anyone with even remotely socially liberal views is gonna be scared off the R’s completely, because there is no redeeming value to those who want small government and actual fiscal conservatism, as the Repubs don’t deliver it. At that point, since you know the government-corporate marriage (fascism, if you will) is inevitable, you either vote libertarian, thereby rendering your vote meaningless, you don’t vote at all, or you see if a silver-tongued politician can take your miserable, exploited life as a member of the 99% and change it into something else. Of course what we get is more of the same.

It’s a waste of tiime to try and combine fiscal conservatism and social liberalism as a political agenda. It just doesn’t work, because fiscal conservatism is unpopular (when people demand spending cuts, what they mean is they want _someone else’s_ spending cut), and social liberalism alienates social conservatives, who are indispensable to any counter-elite voting coalition.

A libertarian governing majority is politically _impossible_. The country class, if assembled into a functioning majority, is going to bear a resembalnce to the old FDR coalition, because it’s more-or-less the same groups, that were driving out of the Democratic Party coalition by the soclail liberals and internationalists. They do want smaller government than the current elites do, but their vision of rightsized government is still going to look horribly bloated to libertarians. A more relaistic way to envision the struggle in America today is ‘big government vs. medium-sized governement’. That won’t get libertarian juices flowing, but it’s the best they’re going to get.

And yes, a functioning country-class majority would have to be mildly socially conservative, as a matter of electoral necessity. Immigration, international free trade, a lot of issues where some libertarians agree with the elites, are anathema to much of the country class.

Well Dave, I wasn’t aware that there was a whole lot Obama wanted his first term that he didn’t get. The billions and billions in bailouts seemed to be his grand scheme at an economic turn-around. He couldn’t care less about the economy anyway, as he’s clearly shown. He’s adopted every social concern possible, from gun control to healthcare to gay marriage to punishing the wealthy. He’s paid gratitude to every type of Democrat voter there is. Maybe if he cared about this country instead of his celebrity he’d have earned that Nobel Prize by now. Instead, he blames others for his failures and apparently you’re just as willing to make excuses for him. Saying, “Gee whiz guys, he’d be the best President this country’s ever had if you’d just let him succeed,” just doesn’t cut it for me. It’s always someone else’s fault.

One only has to look to the Reagan landslide to see who the true silent majority is. The best an establishment candidate will ever do is pull off a slim electoral majority ala G. W. Bush in 2000. Rove has been trying to recreate that victory instead of going after the entire map.

The candidacies of H. Ross Perot and Ron Paul clearly show where all of the dissatisfied republican voters have gone.

The only question that remains is how to get plausible candidates to the neational level without being eviserated by the ruling class dominated media (see Rick Perry). There are no plausible candidates who will even dare to throw their hat into the ring for president so you get a freak show like we saw last year with gingrich and cain alternatively frontrunners with the anointed establishment candidate waiting in the wings until the media finshed them off. It is even difficult to elect a non-establishment senate candidate without being crushed by the media(see Mourdoch, Akin, Angle, Odonnel).

I was only seven years old in 1980, how was Reagan able to do it. Was it because he was an actor and was able to maipulate the media?

Reagan did it because Jimmy Carter had created total economic and foreign affairs chaos. Also because he was consistent in his conservatism for many years even in the face of the usual democrat party tactics. He was no hedging politician who campaigned by trying not to offend.

Both parties are failing the American people. One of them is dangerous; the other is an enabler. Historically, something is about to break loose economically, which will force a good deal of change politically. The bulk of wage and salary earners will not sustain this pus-filled bloat of a corrupt, threatening government much longer. I don’t know quite what will emerge, but I often look to Toffler’s research for clues. You can almost feel the public tension. Something’s about to snap.

The Right has been in resentful retreat ever since the Civil War. They regrouped for a bit after reconstruction, and then they started retreating again in the 1960s. The Right makes two central mistakes (1) they really are racists, and (2) they fail to see that a small government model is insufficient governmental intrastructure for a modern industrial state. As an aside, a large governmental model is our only way to balance and defend ourselves against the greed, arbitrary power, and lack of accountability of large capital interests.

So the Party that was created to free the slaves, proposed and passed both the Civil and Voter Rights legislation is racist?? REALLY? If you had a hint about the massive government overspending drying up private sector capital and jobs, you’d understand “government is the problem not the solution.” Certainly, we have to have some government and laws, but less IS better.

2) Like any REgressive, you fail the fundamental test of what a government should and shouldn’t do. Our government was set up to do a few things like national defense and border security. But the most fundamental job for government is to protect our god given rights and today this government is in an all out assault on our natural rights.

The large governmental model you’re slobbering over is destroying our economy. Thank the teacher’s unions for your mindless jealousy of capitalism.

If you liked this essay, you’ll love the one by Michael Gerson & Peter Wehner in Commentary Magazine. The simple truth is our Representatives are EXACTLY that “representatives.” That’s not one Congressional district exactly like the other. You may have a fiscally conservative but socially liberal district and that’s how a “representative” should vote. Democrats, who sadly are now almost exclusively true believers in the Nanny state, don’t even vote solidly Party line on issues like gun bans. Romney, unfornately, relied on the media to get out extraordinary biography and that was his campaign’s fatal flaw. We do not have a “liberal” media. We have an American Democrat media that largely sees their role as pushing the Democrat’s narrative and issues and looking under every rock for a possible GOP miscue (even taking a drink of water during a speech). We are “the stupid Party” if we don’t actively go around the American Democrat media and straight to the people. We have the means and the techonology. We just have to have as ruthless a candidate as Obama.

but specifically how to go about that is the million dollar question, by definition major media outlets like fox, cn, abc, nbc etc favor the ruling class. how was Reagan able to get his populist message across, did he just catch them napping? I think the fact that he was an actor from hollywood has something to do with it. He knew how media works and was able to manipulate their weaknesses.

did not care for the gerson article by the way, sounds like his solution is for the establishment to become more like the democrats. I think gerson is exactly what codevilla is railing against here. the only way forward is a populist revolution and a rejection of the republican establishmnet.

At the time, Reagan’s appeal was dismissed by the Democrat-Media complex for the reason you put forth, that he was just an actor who was able to fool the voters. The answer lies more in the composition of American society in 1980. There was a sizeable contingent of “Reagan Democrats,” who despite their party affiliation, were still open to the Reagan message of smaller government equals more freedom and prosperity for all, and peace through strength. Maturity and success were still respected, and Democrats and Republicans shared many common social values with regard to religion and family values.

The thing is that they do still exist, but the GOP is refusing to tap into them. Some of the former Reagan Dems joined the Republicans, and some are still officially, if unhappily, Democrats. The problem is that the things that motivated them to swtich over to Reagan were national defense and social issues, their objection to what the Dems were doing was based on the belief that Dems were anti-American and morally wrong, they had _not_ rejected the New Deal in principle, they voted GOP _in spite of_ that aspect of their agenda.

Today, you have a large pool of voters who are socially conservative (in a mild way) and economically nationalist and somewhat protectionist, but who hate the Dems’ social issues, their internationalism and military weakness, but also don’t like the idea of entitlement cuts in SoSec or Medicare. They hate Obamacare for different reasons than libertarians do. They simply are not interested in Ayn Rand’s visions of the how things should work, to the degree they’re aware of her they tend to think she’s a kook.

Codevilla is dead right about the divide between the rulers and the ruled, but the ruled in America are _not_ libertarians, for the most part.

Mr. Codevilla nails it. I’ve become so disillusioned by the elitist thinking of all Professional Politicians that I declare myself Independent. No one in Washington is serious about stopping this tax and spend Leviathon or reducing taxes and eliminating non-Constitutional Departments (see: EPA, Energy, HHS, etc.) and returning Congress to the Enumerated Powers.

Democrats, formerly the party of slavery and segregation, secured the allegiance of racial minorities by unrelenting assertions that the rest of American society is racist. Administrators and teachers at all levels of education taught two generations that they are brighter and better educated than the rest of Americans, whose objections to the schools’ (and the Party’s) prescriptions need not be taken seriously.

Mat 10: 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword . Luk 12: 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Folks, we are living at the end of the evil AGE. Google: Robert Wheeler Todd All this, that the article talks about, is the mess as part of Got’s plan to close this age before the next one of 1000 years. See you all there soon.

Epiphany. Eureka. It’s moments in time like these where sense overcomes you. This article is the most articulate piece I’ve ever read in my 58.

I have been struggling with understanding the “two” parties and now thoroughly understand why the Tea Party is evolving into a new Reagan era and hopefully more.

Thank you so much for helping me release all this anger I feel towards my Republican Party. Now I understand they do not represent me. The Tea Party and Conservatives like Mark Levin are educating and informing the masses.

Libertarians have their own political party. They get their assess kicked every 4 years. Why don’t they leave our Republican party alone? I guess they want to nominate another Gary Johnson or Ron Paul and have him lose with 10% of the vote instead of their regular 1% of the vote. Reagan would never have become president if he had ran as a libertarian and he knew it. Libertarians are social liberals who fail to recognize that limited government and freedom is impossible without a morally virtuous citizenry. They fail to to recognize that government promotion of virtue and prohibition of vice is not liberal tyranny but a necessary condition for political and civil liberty. Their anarchist tendencies lead to the very tyranny of the modern liberal state that they claim to oppose. Robert Bork’s Slouching towards Gomorrah proves that radical individualism is a fundamental component of both modern liberalism and libertarianism. Both lead to tyranny because radical individualism and licentiousness, as opposed to human freedom, destroys the family and virtuous citizenry which is necessary for limited government and is incompatible with tyranny. George Will is an old socially liberal geezer who supported Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008. He is the ruling class’s version of a conservative, i.e. pseudo-conservative elite. How did his support for a pro-abort, Sodom and Gomorrah Republican turn out in 2008?

Hey Eric — ‘your’ Republican party just got it’s ass kicked by a Lib loser who should have lost by ten points. Didn’t you read the article? Your Republican leadership is conspiring with Liberal Democrats to not only expand the size and scope of government, they don’t care much for those who try to limit government. They don’t care much about your virtuous society either. They mock your kind while drinking cocktails at their ruling class blue blood parties. Wake up, the country is already lost, and the Republican Ruling Class was part of the destruction.

Try to purge the right-most factions – check Hyperbolize/call them all anarchists without any evidence – check Use vague moral terms like “morally virtuous citizenry” – check Use it as justification to call for more government intervention – check Rationalize it by saying you have to negate freedom to keep it – check Hysterically fear and loathe “radical individualism” – check

This libertarian has left the Party. And I’m doing my very best to take as many as I can with me. You will have the purity you want. And be reduced to the effectiveness of the Illinois or California Republican Party.

You do realize that libertarians cost the R party 9 down ticket races. Honored to be of service. You don’t want my vote? You won’t get it.

Medical Marijuana prohibition is a crime against humanity and a violation of the religious precept – heal the sick.

Here`s my 2 cents worth. 1)Term limits for all senators and congressmen. 2) restrict all legislators from Washington DC for the better part of the year eg 3/4 3)Pay them $1,000,000 per year. that way we take the quest for $ out of the equation. Theoretically anyways. 4) An accountability office with enforcement powers to keep them in line.

Term limit all seantors and congressmen and you effectively transfer the power to the permanent bureauracy. We already have a problem with that, it would be far worse if the high ranking executive branch officials, the ones who will be there for years to come, know that each new elected official will be gone in a few years. Congress has already ceded too much power to the executive branch, term limits would likely reduce Congress to a rubber stamp.

At this moment it seems to me that Rand Paul is best placed to take politics in a different direction. His father’s followers are still there and numerous enough to build a faction on. Of course, there must be a signal event to finally destroy the Republican Party. By the end of 2014, we will know, I think.

Ron Paul didn’t have enough followers to matter politically. He had a relatively small but very highly motivated core of followers who used good organization and high motivation to give the illusion that he matttered more than he did. They could sweep straw polls and sometimes tilt caucus votes, but they simply were not numerous enough to form the nucleus of a serious challenge to the establishment, and they can’t form that nucleus for Rand Paul either, because the majority of the country class isn’t libertarian.

The country class is only a majority if you include the traditionally Democratic members of the FDR coalition who have been alienated by the modern Dems, and that means a country-class majority is going to be a deep disappointment for serious libertarians. It would be better than Obama and Co. for libertarians, but still ‘statist’ from their POV.

One point about Ron Unz: Andrew Gelman has challenged his article. I apologise in advance for raising The Question, but you really should google “That claim that Harvard admissions discriminate in favor of Jews?”. (His answer is “no”.)

Otherwise the article is pretty good, and I have no problem with you linking to The American Conservative; but you should take care when you do, like we take care when liking to Kos.

Good riddance. 2014 can’t come soon enough. Rove and his ilk are tired and done for. Work for and help elect ANYONE that isn’t picked from the Establishment republicans. They’ll never see another dime from me or my politically active friends.

There’s a lot of truth to this and I think that the Tea Party is preparing the ground to unseat the leadership of the GOP one way or another. I think that the most likely is actually not a third party but a general internal revolt. It’s not going to happen next week, or maybe not for a few years, but I think that’s what is in the works.

I have been waiting for at least a year for someone to state what has become increasingly apparent as to the nature of “The Grand Old Party”. We have become disenfranchised by a group of people who, after being elected to Washington, and moving their families, have taken on their positions in the second tier of the ruling class—-vassals you might call them. Oh, they will return to their home states on occasion for the purpose of doling out lip service speeches, extolling the virtues of Republicanism, and constitutional government, when in fact their true nature is one of elitism, and arrogance. What might appear to be incomprehensible cowardice, or incompetence in our Republican politicians, is in fact, a tow the line for the home team attitude of Washington and big government. We can only theorize what consequences await those who buck the unofficial, official flow–social, and political ostracization, and the worst fate of all—RETURNING HOME !

This is a great essay, I hope everyone in this community takes the time to read it an understand the message. The message is clear–conservatives, in the sense of those who want less government and more personal liberty, are the majority, but are held back by the unrelenting actions of progressives and leadership Republicans who pursue their own interest at the expense of those they represent.

This is the message that has to get out. If forming a new party is the answer, and it may be, fine, let’s get on with it. However, an alternative approach is taking over the reigns of control within the Republican Party and relaunching it as the Party of small government, one that realizes that nation building isn’t a defense strategy and that social issue are the purview of the States, not the Federal government.

In order for this strategy to work today’s Republican Party leadership will have to be publicly executed (figuratively, not literally) and replaced with new leaders who explicitly repudiate the actions of past Republican statist like GWB, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Bill Frist, Denny Hastert, and many others. These people and their intellectual positions have to be publicly repudiated and their ideas thrown under the bus. Remember that conservative Republicans, Democrats and Independents who hold these ideas I described above are the majority, statist are the minority .

By taking the above actions, a new Republican Party, or for that matter a new Party entirely, can emerge. This new political entity would be the vanguard that leads America to a future where the federal government was smaller and focused on protecting individual freedom and liberty, that supported commerce and did not use government to promote crony capitalism at the expense of free enterprise, that recognized that we are a Republic whose citizen hold diverse views on many issue and supported federalism as the means for best solving social issue as close to those affected, while still supporting the individual by vigorously enforcing the individual protections found in the bill-of-rights.

These things were the promise of America as I was taught them 67 years ago. Unfortunately, the promise has gone unmet for my lifetime because of the power alignment detailed in this essay. However, today there is hope. The battle won’t be easy or short, but it is winnable. Rise up America, understand the promise of a future where government was a sideshow, not the main event, have faith in the cause and join the battle to tear apart Babylon

Chuck, I just signed up as a commenter on this site, specifically for the purpose of letting you know that I appreciated your remarks almost as much as I did this brilliant essay. I have been thinking and writing along these same lines, since I recovered from the shock of Nov. 6th last, and completely lost interest in following the Kabuki theater of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly:

///Incumbrepublocrats: n. The sham duopoly of incumbent ruling elites, tricking complaisant sheeple into believing they need frequent sheering for the welfare of the herd, and have a choice of shepherds promising, yet never quite providing, eternally green pastures in wolf-free zones.///

I once thought that the TEA Party insurgency might could take over the Republican wing; but the Primary debacle of 2012 disabused me of that notion. The elites are too entrenched, and their financial backers have too much to lose, to ever give up control of the Party, without a long brutal fight. One need only reflect on the unconscionable amounts of money that were spent in negative advertising, to kill off one challenger after another to the oligarchs’ choice of Romney, to see what we would be up against. It is probably a fool’s mission.

Besides, there are certain advantages to a fresh start, whether it be an actual new Party, or just a caucus committed to federalism, State’s rights, and upholding the liberty, sovereignty, and natural rights of individuals. Re-branding is always problematical, and long-held enmity runs deep. Regardless of ideology, the Republicans had to wait for enough oldsters to die off, before they could ever get a majority of Southerners to vote for them. More importantly, it is easier to win a plurality than a majority.

I would suggest that we leave the Republican wing as a playground, to distract the culture warriors on the Right, doing battle with the social justice warriors on the Left. Then, we could make significant inroads among the independent-minded and less dogmatic moderates, whom the Democrats currently count on, because they fear the Politically Correct busybodies less than the Piously Correct busybodies.

I have done some research and analyzed some numbers, which lead me to believe that a rogue party/caucus, focused solely on the national political arena (leaving social issues to State and local government venues), intent not on ‘fixing’ the bloated Federal bureaucracy, but dismantling it, could successfully compete with the Incumbrepublocrats and win a plurality. You might be interested in considering it: ( http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2012/12/26/rogue-party-proposal/ ) ◄Dave►

Dr. Codevilla Brilliant extension of your original work, I will promote this as I have your other writigs to try to engage and foster enlightenment of the low information citizen.

A brief note to John and his comments: your history like your facts are based on convenience and not accuracy, your dishonesty in the omission of the African’s involvement with the “slave traders” is one of familiarity. You’; like many progressive socialist American’s of color never divulge your own races history of the tribal involvement with the capture and sale of African’s to Western European’s long before the formation of this Republic which still continues to this day. The Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” which define it, has provided all races with more freedom through “Self Determinaion” than any other Nation in history. And you and the progressive socialist agenda created by FDR’s “New Deal” and LBJ’s “Great Society” legislation have created an even more evil version of slavery by those programs: “economic slavery”. Your indoctrination of multi-generational “useful idiots” created through the bureacracies controlled by progressive socialist’s in DC will wake up when you run out of excuses for its failure (and our money).

You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight. Barry Goldwater

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. Barry Goldwater

While I absolutely agree that government, if it follows the 1st Amendment, CANNOT not promote abortion, birth control, and/or homosexuality among a lot of other things, the 1st 16 words of the 1st Amendment also prevents government from prohibiting them.

Those who want to write their religious beliefs into secular law and crush the religious freedom of the non-believers are just as much my enemy, and the enemy of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, as the communists, socialists and Marxists whose goal is to use government to crush the religious freedom people of faith.

This is the real battle.. Which idea of religious freedom will be followed?

Is religious freedom defined as the communists, socialists and Marxists claim that as long as government doesn’t force you to have an abortion, you have religious freedom even though government is forcing you to pay for abortions?

On the other side are those who claim they can’t have religious freedom without being able to force non-believers to follow the believers religious “laws”.

Clearly BOTH positions are at odds with the Ideals of the FRAMERS as written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Goldwater had it exactly right: “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”

Actually, I think you are fundamentally wrong but perhaps not for the reasons you think. There are a couple of links between the abortion issue and homosexuality and you are zooming on the wrong ones. You don’t want any authority, religious or otherwise, to infringe on another person’s activities, regardless of how the rest of society views those activities. I suspect that the majority of people who oppose abortion and gay marriage agree with that principle.

Where there is a departure is when another party becomes involved. Most agree that libertarianism is fine until an individual’s actions impinge on someone else’s. Even libertarians accept this principle.

Consider abortion for a second. Many people on the feminist side get outraged when someone else, especially a male, tells them that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed. But the fact is that generally the person opposing abortion doesn’t really care what the woman does with her body but instead cares greatly about the defenseless unborn human being who is about to be murdered. that, my friend, crosses the line between libertarianism and barbarism.

The same is basically true with homosexuality. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t really care what consenting adults do in private. The problem is that gay marriage crosses the line involving other people again. Gay marriage is an attempt by gays to force the broader society to accept them through legal means. Fine. But when these legal means are imposed they also extend well beyond just the gays cohabitating. If gays are afforded the same rights as straights in marriage then this also means they have equal rights on adoption. Here’s where we introduce the 3rd party (the adopted child) whose life is dramatically affected by the actions of the couple.

It is easy for people like you to cast those opposed as being “haters” and not believing in libertarian principles. Know that this is not true. The issues are way more complex than just a “live and let live” approach.

Some things transcend the Constitution. Yes, I said it. The Constitution cannot self-legitimize, it’s authority has have a source, and the culture war debate is precisely about the nature of the Constitution.

As to whether the Constitution forbids the government to forbid abortion, it doens’t. If the baby is a human being before birth, then the government has the same authority to forbid it that it does to forbid any murder, if the baby is not a human being before birth, if not, then probably not.

As for religion, it’s _impossible_ for politics and law to be independent of it, and the Founders were under no illusions about that. They would reject the analysis above about what the Consitution means, because they themselves were of divided mind about that matter.

Here is my laundry list of things I would like to have represented by a new party of the ‘country class’ of Americans:

Re-establishment of Constitutional separation of powers

End the promotion of homosexuality and funding for abortion by the federal government

Resolve to balance the federal government by Constitutional amendment or statute and abolish base-line budgeting.

Abolish the Federal Reserve returning the authority to coin money to the Congress

Abolish the federal tax code and replaces it with a levy of no greater than 10% on all wage income which can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote of the Congress or Constitutional amendment.

Abolish the Social Security system benefits and contributions for any person under the age of 50 years old at the time the law takes place.

End public assistance for non-citizens, including resident aliens

Establish demonstrably secure borders including a system to track the exit of foreign visitors (like almost every other first world nation has already)

This would be a good start and cut out 40-60% of federal spending. I’m not interested in a cult of personality either a-la Ross Perot or Ron Paul people. Just Americans who basically want the government to be of very little influence in their lives and send representatives to the Congress and the presidency who honor and defend a core set of principles. I think that the Republican party will either be destroyed by its so-called leaders or transformed into a party that actually represents the majority of Americans by the grassroots. If the latter happens I’ll stick with them.

The federal government neither promotes homosexuality nor funds abortion. Balancing the budget over the business cycle is wise. Balancing it during recession is economic suicide. The federal reserve does not coin money. Since you insist on massive cuts in income and a balanced budget, tell us what spending cuts you will make. I guess letting old people die of starvation or other avoidable deaths is your first step. Most of Europe has the Schengen agreement which allows people to go from country to country the way we go state to state. There’s no reason for the US to have the severe border controls it has today. No, 9/11 is not a valid reason.

Supporting gay marriage absolutely promotes homosexuality. This is a core plank in the democratic party’s platform. Since this party controls the Executive Branch and the Senate, how can you possibly claim they do not support homosexuality?

The feds have promoted abortion for years through funding of Planned Parenthood. They claim that they don’t fund the abortions, only the other things like cancer screening etc. Baloney. PP has a yearly budget and by applying its federal funding to these other things they divert the same amount of money to the abortions. That’s pretty facetious to claim otherwise. And now with Obamacare, all people will have “birth control” funded even though some of the forms of that, most notably the so-called morning after pill, are really abortion-inducing medications, albeit with tiny fetuses.

This agenda would go down to such flaming electoral defeat as to make McGovern’s failure in 1972 or Goldwater’s in 1964 look competitive. It would alienate 3/4s of the country class. Some bits of it would be popular, but the social security clause alone would be enough to defeat it at the ballot box.

The country class is a majority, but only if we include a huge swath of people who approve of the New Deal but hate the Great Society. Otherwise it’s an exercise in wishful thinking.

The attention of conservatives is (rightly) being turned back to “the several states”, and exercising their political power therein. Conservatives actually did pretty well on state and local levels this last election.

For too long, states have abdicated their essential role as watchdog and balance of central federal power.

Conservatives now have an extraordinary – and probably short-lived – window in which to enable their states to regain some (perhaps much) of their power. The unconstitutional overreach by this president and congress gives states a reason – a DUTY – to stand up for themselves, their citizens’ rights, and the constitution.

The main hurdle on this path is de-mesmerizing conservatives from the glittery dog-and-pony show that is national politics, and refocusing their sights and energy on statewide politics.

Mobilizing the full resources of the nation to get something big and important done is now a deeply engrained habit of both parties. We’re Americans and we can do it!

We’ve had enough practice. For most of the past 100 years, the US has been in a state of permanent emergency. If it wasn’t the Kaiser, it was the Depression; if it wasn’t the Depression, it was Hitler & Tojo; if it wasn’t Hitler & Tojo, it was Communism; if it wasn’t Communism, it was Islam; if it wasn’t Islam, it was the financial meltdown; now it’s Global Warming. Let’s not omit the various wars on poverty, cancer, childhood hiccups, blah, blah, blah. Always another damn reason for Government to amass more and more power; and you won’t find too many Americans, superintendent-class or country class, who didn’t buy into at least one of them.

The Country Class will have to break a national mindset, and I’m not sure it can be done.

Who is the party of racism? You just casually toss that charge out like it was a simple thing yet you offer nothing in support of that.

Which party has deliberate race groups and caucuses within it? Which party controls the Black Caucus and did not like a black from the other party (Alan West) being a member because he supposedly didn’t represent black interests?

Which party runs a Justice Department that overlooks blatant intimidation such as what happened in the 2008 election at the Philadelphia poll?

Which party is headed by a president who, without any facts, jumped to the conclusion that the white cop (Sgt Crowley) in Boston in 2009 acted stupidly by arresting a black professor (Henry Louis Gates)?

Which party’s support comes from what appears to be blind racial support? Is it just coincidence that 97% of blacks voted for Obama? With that kind of support, how can you claim that it is anything other than voting for him just because he is black (or will preferentially support “black issues”) which is in itself racist?

How many Republicans belong to the NAACP? Is there such a thing as the NAAWP that these racist, white Republicans can join? Hm, I haven’t seen that.

Which party had the first black Secretary of State? Which party had the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Which party had the first Hispanic Attorney General?

The city of Chicago is absolutely controlled by the Dems. Even though the out-of-control violence is almost exclusively black on black, how can you blame the Repubs? The same is basically true for most other older urban centers including Philadelphia, New York and D.C.

Which party has 2 Hispanic Senators? Clue, they don’t use a donkey…

Maybe it is convenient for progressives to castigate all white people as being racist and Republican but none of that is remotely true.

How about instead of telling us what we’ve known for many years now, you and other supposed conservative thought leaders start offering some practical and strategic ways to fix the problem?

You might start by acknowledging that electoral politics is a dead end. The best case is you throw the bums out but they’ll just be replaced by more bums as they have again and again.

We need something new and different. Some have proposed a renewal of federalism. This has some merit but also a key weakness – it’ll at most double or triple the number of people who need to be bought off. In a few decades we could easily be as bad off as now.

My preference is to give the People a direct say in government, a fourth branch so to speak. The idea is that outsiders can continually require consideration of innovative social change that can’t be buried by the bureaucracy and crushed by partisanship.

With the exception of the Reagan Administration? Are you kidding me? When Reagan took office, we were merely $9Billion in debt, when he left, we had a debt of $2.7 TRILLION. How do you figure that an increase of almost 300% is NOT an expansion of government??

This article provides a strong intellectual case for the Conservative Party USA. CP-USA was founded on the principle that the two major parties have failed America and this article tells you why, in part. But Republicans share most of that blame because they always tell us they’re conservative but run Congress like Democrats.

Probably the best article I’ve read on Forbes in quite sometime. I can definitely say that Dr. Codevilla has done an excellent job of summarizing the feelings of many middle class Americans, myself included.

I am extremely interested to see if a third party can successfully overthrow the Republican establishment in the next several years. While it seems inevitable, the electoral college – as Dr. Codevilla pointed out – makes it difficult if not impossible for a third party candidate to make any headway in the presidential election. This revolution of sorts needs to start in Congress. The only question is whether the movement is spearheaded by frustrated voters electing candidates from existing third parties, or if the non-establishment Republicans wise up and unite to form their own party.

I love your self image as the righteous black man holding up the image of the evil founding fathers, and trying to push this white guilt trip. And don’t talk your 2nd grade version of history Mr righteous black man. Very few Americans have ancestors who owned slaves. They don’t have any collective guilt and obligation to be taxed and to go into national debt purgatory to pay reparations to black farmers, and for vast welfare and medical scams for the parasitic class who refuse to do the jobs that they are qualified to do. Whatever those jobs are. Even they are limited to jobs like picking cotton or cleaning bathrooms.

There is one thing that bothers me and does not seem to be explained. If two thirds of the Republican congresspeople are conservative, why did they elect and reelect a country-club-Republican like John Boeher as their leader?

remember, 240 some years ago, our forefathers brought fore on these shores a new nation. The reason they did that was because the government of the time wanted to disarm them…we now have 3 states (Colorado, Minnasota, Wisconsin) who have bills pending that will allow the government to confiscate legally owned firearms…think about that.

In April 1775, 77 men stood on a village green in a small town and told the government “you shall not pass”…what would those men think today about the government we’ve allowed to bloat out of control? What would those men think about a government that was planning to break into law abiding citizen’s homes to sieze legally owned weapons?

Are we lesser men and women now? Do we lack to stature to stand up to government’s attempts to tyranize us?

WOW! What a great piece. The professor is talking about me. I’m sick to death of these candy asses in DC purporting to represent and especially sick of Boehner and Mitchell. Jesus these guys are going along with the economic destruction of this country. They should be shouting EVERY DAY this spending is death for us. Instead, they abandon my values and principles.

I’d love Sarah Palin to sit these Roveistas down and tell them if she doesn’t get the nomination, she’s going 3rd party and will oppose both parities. Me and millions of fed up Americans just like me will STOP OUR LIVES and work our asses off for her.

I’ll tell you this, I finally understand why so many conservatives sat on their hands in 2012. If Jeb Bush is nominated, I will not vote Republican top of the ticket.

Libertarians in contrast have been building civic groups for core rights and voluntary community eco-solutions in all countries. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues worldwide, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ….

Good article. But he is missing something very important. Give this movie 5 minutes of your time and you won’t be able to walk away…. Most important movie I have ever watched and its a shame less then a half a million Americans have ever been exposed to it. No conspiracies. Just verifiable facts that everyone should know…it connects all the dots in how we got here Watch it. Share it. Arrange a showing in church, groups, clubs, with friends or family. Everyone who loves America needs to see this movie, It is free on line for the moment https://vimeo.com/52009124 If America goes down, the free world will go down with it and it will be finished for a very, very long time…

Sorry to say,the article sounds much too much of negative thoughts which seem to have taken birth out of some frustration.How can any one find comparisons between the concepts of slavery which had existed in 1776 or in the later years culminating into a civil war,and promulgation of enactments leading to abolition the slavery,with the modern times of the politically awakened masses who know their rights of votes,right to recall their representatives or question their leaders through the constitutional provisions of accountability? Again,how come the author compares concept of Whigs with the modern day parties whether Democrates or Republicans? Whigs’ down fall is attributed partly to their slogan that”everyman hath a price”with the 21st century world where such things don’t exist and none can dare nurse on such slogans.Experience of the sudden birth of Tea-Party was short lived owing mainly due to faulty execution of this party’s agenda.Mit Romney could’nt succeed as he lacked a support from women due to some faults in his own agenda that we all understand.Counrty is facing an extremely uphill task to meet the challenge of wiping out over $18 trlns worth of deficits,and for that matter some compromises need to be made by the parties across the political aisel,would that mean,for any stretch of reasoning that the Republican party is losing its sheen or that,the country is being orphaned? Let’s give a pragmatic approach,and evolve a resolution,to find remedy to clean the slate from its financial crunch and wipe out deficits.In the modern times,parties across the aisel should’nt sit across,to create stumbling blocks,for the sake of opposition.I am so sorry,I am giving an optimistic view.

In the previous years, the 2 parties wanted to spend a lot of money and one side said let’s increase spending by $1 trillion while the other side said let’s spend $1.4 trillion so compromise was that we increased spending by $1.2 trillion.

That’s not where conservatives are now. Instead of increasing spending by anything, conservatives say let’s cut spending. Old school Repubs want to increases pending, just on things they want to spend $$ on like the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

So it is not just an issue of compromise or “can’t we all just get along” like it used to be. We are truly at a crossroads.

Oops,a few lines got skipped from my post! Iceland was at the brink of almost bankruptcy,facing conditions like Greek,in the wake of grave melt-down with huge financial deficits.Then parties there rose to the occasion,gave a united support in the matter of bringing their nation’s economy back to track.A lot of good work has been done by them in this behalf yet much more remains to be achieved,so Iceland is on its feet struggling hard continuously to bring back rosey days over there; does it mean,Icelanders have become orphans since their political parties across the spectrum have joined hands to steer clear their economy? Right now Iceland is a role model before the world’s democracies,courage,stamina and large-heartedness to fight for a common cause for the sake of their country ignoring their differences.

Icelanders, regardless of party, mostly recognized they could not continue to borrow their way of a debt-induced economic collapse. That is not the case here in the US. The democrats, now a majority, simply refuse to acknowledge that our debt is slowly draining us; it is the reason that recessions have been progressively deeper and longer to recover from. Until Americans can muster a common understanding that we can not continue to print money and borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, the will be no political unity, there can’t be without at least one underlying common principle shared within both parties. The remarkable thing is that all monetary history should that the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue advocating running our debt to infinity with know intent to make good on it.

You’re starting to sound like a broken record (in case you are too young to remember, ‘records’ are large vinyl discs with grooves in them that people used to put on “turntables” that turned in circles, and music that was recorded on the discs would come out)…got anything else to say, or is that it?

There are serious problems with the ‘country class’ that will prevent its rise among thoughtful people. Number one may be its willful ignorance of and hostility to science and scientific method which lead it to support policies in education, medicine and sciences that are anathema to educated ‘country class’ sympathizers. Second is its authoritarian outlook on personal freedoms in sex and marriage. Third is its tendency to view socio-economic problems through a lens of unattractive racial stereotypes. Fourth is its willingness to trust businesspeople who are secretly part of or dependent on the ruling class. I could probably go on. In short, I need to be shown that the ‘country classes’, or at least their candidates, though with legitimate grievances, are not ‘country asses’.

No rational person can deny that neither of the two political parties or the federal government any longer provide representation to a large segment of American citizens. The only real question is whether representation and the constitutional system can be restored short of a complete economic collapse and whether it will involve large scale violence as the regressive forces of the left fight to hold back the deluge. I fear that a collapse cannot be avoided and that it will lead to violence although, for the sake of all, I sincerely pray that we may avoid such calamities. History tells us that the great change needed to sweep away deeply entrenched elites and the interlocking power centers they construct to keep themselves in power can usually not be accomplished short of revolutionary violence.

Times have changed. Read Gaidar’s “Collapse of an Empire” which details the end of the Soviet Union and Russia’s transition. Lincoln, Stalin, Breznev all sent in troops to fire on the people who wanted out, but when Gorbachev considered the same thing when Poland declared secession plans, the troops would not fire on citizens.

Another example is how the elite in Europe are using the EU to accomplish the same thing that Napoleon and Hitler tried but using economics and not guns…..”The Rotten Heart of Europe” is a good read….

Yes. The key to understanding the mess we’re in is to recognize that the public likes government spending. America is a social democracy, and if you count in tax credits (which let the government direct spending without actually taxing), it’s not even much less of one than most of the European liberal democracies.

When the public talks about spending cuts and big government, they almost always mean they want to cut somebody else’s spending. They want to keep their own, or increase it.

The debate in America is not ‘statist vs. liberatarian’, and trying to pretend it is will only end in the power of the establishment growing. Lots of people are angry, but they’re not angry about the same things.

Stop denigrating my ancestors, John! My ancestors came here starting in the early 17th century to escape religious persecution, as did many others. They were very devout people, yet you imply that they were low-lifes. They were not slaveholders; in fact, some of their descendants ran a station on the Underground Railroad, and many were abolitionists. My most recent immigrant ancestor was an indentured servant, trying to find a better way of life in a land without famine. Many Americans, yes, many conservative Americans, have a similar story.

The election of Romney (really Republicrite wolf) would have removed the rabid Demoncrat wolf from the sheepfold, but allowed a ravenous wolf in sheep’s cloths to enter. The wolf we have is an obvious danger and we know how he will attack the sheep. Romney is sly and would have fooled a lot of sheep. The fold (America) would have still been destroyed—only slower. Read the rest at http://www.insectman.us/misc/wolves.htm

Please explain to me how a Republican Party core (i.e. the dominant social conservative wing) that continually insults libertarians can make a coalition big enough to win Presidential or even State elections. In other words the Party of “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Reagan is no longer viable. It is not just “country” vs “city”. The ruled vs the elite. There is nothing that can make a new Party. It will take 20 years for the social conservatives to die off. While that is going on the Democrats will reign. Barry Goldwater predicted it.

When will Libertarians stop being the butt of jokes ending with “doobie”? Conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. We have common ground, especially in promoting Tenth Amendment issues. Libertarians need to grow up and learn how to prioritize.

The thoughtful article touches on a key point when the author notes that the FDR coalition was disparate and made up of groups that often hated each other. It worked because they could agree on a few things, and because FDR made a point of driving out the most extreme elements, as personified by Wallace. FDR predicted that trying to implement what Wallace stood for would split the coalition apart. He was proven right in the 1960s, when the McGovernite movement brought back the spirit of Wallace to the Democratic Party, and split the FDR coalition. The biggest single reason why Goldwater failed and Reagan suceeded was that split.

The trouble for today’s country class is that it is made up of many of those same disparate components, and many of them are hostile to each other. To create a working coalition is going to requrie compromise between them. Yes, that means libertarians have to decide if they can tolerate social conservatism as part of the tradeoff for more economic deregulation. It means that social conservatives have to compromise with libertarians. It means accepting that the military won’t be eliminated and people can’t be the sole arbiters of their own morality. Nobody can half the whole loaf, even victory just means you get a few slices.

It means accepting that most of FDR’s legacy is _popular_, and that attempts to do much to roll that back just mean you get the Full Obama instead. We saw that this last time, when the GOP threw away a chance to block Obamacare by trying to lump it in with Social Security and Medicate, and thus now will likely get all 3 instead of just 2.

It means starting political analyses not with what we want, but with the facts of life on the ground. It means accepting that most people won’t respond to either John Galt or Ron Paul, any more than they will to Dobson.

It means accepting tha that Islamist threat is real, that China is not our ally, and that we can’t make war go away, just as it means accepting that we can’t shape the world into our image.

Why is Dr. Codevilla not more famous? He is one of the current greats, as far as I’m concerned, and certainly has topnotch creds. One can only conclude that the men who control the media, including Fox, object to his knowledge of them and to his exposing them. Truth is very often unpopular, alas.

Perhaps “country people” is representative of what the D.C. elite think of their voters but “countrymen” would be more true today. I think what the professor is predicting is no less than revolution by Volkskrieg against an entrenched ruling class. It is bloody business we discuss here and with the countrymen clearing the shelves of arms and ammo while the establishment is arming and training IRS agents in use of the AR15 as a standoff weapon and DHS is working of their trillionth round of ordered hollow point, both sides seem to be thinking alike. As the Chinese say “may they have an interesting life”.

Spot-on. It’s going to take a revolution of some kind. The present Republican Party needs to be abandoned. Nothing can happen until it’s leadership is completely deprived of power. As long as they have a base they have power. The base must abandon them.